In Jefford & Kaluza [2026] FedCFamC1A 6, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Hogan, Altobelli & Jarrett JJ) overturned draconian parenting orders that completely severed a father’s contact with his two children. The appellate judges found that the trial judge had failed to consider crucial prior findings, ignored credibility evidence, and misapplied the principles governing unacceptable risk and evidentiary assessment under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The decision is a powerful reminder that risk assessments in child protection cases must be evidence-based, holistic, and procedurally fair.Facts and IssuesFactsThe parties, Mr Jefford (father) and Ms

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller & Kari JJ) in Arrighetti & Qodirova [2026] FedCFamC1A 1 delivered a landmark appellate judgment clarifying the scope of judicial discretion in cases involving emotional and psychological harm to children. The Court dismissed a mother’s appeal challenging draconian parenting orders that imposed a six-month moratorium on contact with her daughter, indefinite supervision thereafter, and a total prohibition on contact between the child and the maternal grandmother. The case underscores the balance courts must strike between protecting children from emotional harm and preserving their right to

The appellate judgment in Leena & Leena [2025] FedCFamC1A 241 (Hogan, Altobelli & McNab JJ) serves as a critical reminder that judicial neutrality must not only exist but must be seen to exist. The Court partially allowed an appeal from parenting and property orders after finding that the trial judge’s premature comments and conduct during the hearing gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case further addressed errors in the trial judge’s approach to contributions in the property settlement, setting aside those orders and remitting the matter for rehearing before a different judge.Facts and IssuesThe appellant (mother) and respondent (father) disputed both parenting arr

In Tekla & Tekla [2025] FedCFamC1A 245, Justice Riethmuller of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a landmark decision on the operation of the Division 2 costs scale and the proper application of “solicitor and client” costs in family law proceedings. The Court allowed the appeal, finding the primary judge had no evidentiary basis for a $78,955 lump-sum costs order and instead fixed the amount at $64,685.98. The judgment provides critical clarification on how courts should determine reasonable rates and time for legal work under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and how the discretion under s 114UB of the

In Verber & Verber [2025] FedCFamC1A 240, a complex intersection of legal professional privilege, procedural fairness, and the right to inspect court records came before the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller & Kari JJ). The husband, his brother, and a family trust sought to overturn an order permitting the wife to inspect limited documents from prior family law proceedings involving the husband’s parents. The appellants argued that the wife’s access would exploit privileged information misused in earlier litigation. The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the inspection would breach privilege or amount t

In Takenaka & Maddox [2025] FedCFamC1A 243, Justice Campton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) dismissed an appeal by a self-represented father who sought to overturn extensive parenting orders. The appeal arose from findings that the father engaged in a sustained, four-year campaign of intimidation, threats, and coercive control against the mother. Despite voluminous filings and claims of judicial error, the Court upheld the trial judge’s assessment that the father’s domineering behaviour and lack of insight rendered shared care unsafe. The decision underscores the judiciary’s increasing recognition of coercive control as family violence under s 4AB of the Family Law A

In Conner & Conner (No.3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 235, Justice Schonell of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) was asked to expedite an appeal concerning interim parenting orders. The mother (appellant) alleged that the child was at risk of harm in the father’s care and sought urgent consideration of her appeal. The Court, however, refused to grant expedition, finding that the appeal—already listed within three months—was effectively being fast-tracked and that no compelling basis existed to prioritise it over other pending appeals.Facts and Issues:The parties were engaged in protracted and highly conflictual parenting litigation under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).The

In Provenza & Provenza (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1A 232, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) delivered a sharp procedural reminder: even when family violence findings are damning, judicial power must remain within statutory bounds. The father’s appeal succeeded in part—not because the trial judge erred in substance, but because she made injunctions under s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that conflicted with an existing State family violence order (FVO). Justice Austin found that this overlap breached s 114AB of the Act, rendering three injunctions invalid. The case underscores the limits of concurrent federal and state jurisdiction in family violence protecti

In Walshe & Walshe [2025] FedCFamC1A 231, Justice Campton delivered an important appellate decision clarifying the powers and responsibilities of family judges when assessing risk in interim parenting disputes. The Court confirmed that, even when evidence is untested or conflicting, judges are not prohibited from making factual determinations necessary to protect children. The decision affirms the judiciary’s duty to act cautiously but decisively in child-related matters — particularly where allegations of sexual abuse or family violence arise.Facts and IssuesThe mother alleged that the father posed an unacceptable risk to their daughter (born 2019) due to sexual abuse, family violence,

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) delivered a rare and scathing rebuke of solicitor conduct in Fing & Ma (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 230. The Full Court found that the solicitor, Mr AQ of Aston Legal Group, had departed from objective professional judgment and acted under emotional and religious influence in urging a grieving client to pursue a hopeless appeal based on her late father’s suicide note. The solicitor was ordered to personally pay over $97,000 in costs on an indemnity basis — a stark reminder that legal advocacy must remain dispassionate, evidence-based, and client-centred.Facts and IssuesThe case stemmed from a failed property appeal brought by the

How a father’s six-figure legal bill turned into a cautionary tale about fairness, restraint, and the limits of costs recovery in family law.In Langley & Mirza (No 2) [2025], Justice Austin delivered a sharp reality check for litigants pursuing large-scale cost recoveries in family law. Despite the father spending $252,235.91 in actual legal costs, he walked away with only $10,000 in costs on appeal — a stark illustration that family law costs are governed by proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness, not the magnitude of one’s legal bills.The case demonstrates that even where a party “wins,” discretion and equity control the outcome — not accounting spreadsheets or punitive motives.

In Conner & Conner (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 223, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia reaffirmed a fundamental principle of appellate law — not every order is appealable. The mother’s attempt to appeal procedural directions relating to a psychiatric assessment was dismissed as incompetent because the orders did not determine any substantive rights. The Court’s reasoning underscores the distinction between procedural and final orders and the importance of understanding when an appeal properly lies.Facts and IssuesThe parties married in 2019 and have one child (born 2021).Following separation in 2022, multiple interim parenting orders were made allowing the c